What evidence exists about Brookfield Asset Management’s headquarters move and Mark Carney’s involvement?
Executive summary
Brookfield announced it shifted its head office from Toronto to New York in a statement disclosed in October 2024, a move critics say was designed to attract more U.S. investors and eligibility for U.S. indexes [1]. Evidence tying Mark Carney directly to the decision is mixed: Conservatives point to a December 1, 2024 letter and the timing of corporate announcements while Carney and his spokespeople counter that the formal board decision occurred after he had left the board in mid‑January 2025 [2] [3].
1. The corporate timeline that anchors the debate
Public reporting establishes a clear corporate timeline: Brookfield announced the shift of its head office in October 2024 as part of steps to make shares more attractive to U.S. investors and gain inclusion in U.S. indexes such as the S&P 500 [1], and company materials and media reporting contemporaneously discussed restructuring and listings in late 2022 and 2024 that involved New York and Toronto listings [4] [5]. Brookfield’s own governance updates show leadership changes around Carney’s departure — Bruce Flatt was named chair after Carney stepped away to run for political office [6].
2. The documentary traces cited by opponents
Conservative critics point to several documentary touchpoints as proof of Carney’s involvement: a Brookfield press release dated Oct. 31, 2024 announcing the headquarters move and a December 1, 2024 letter allegedly sent to shareholders by Carney — both predating his formal resignation from the board — and use those documents to argue he participated in or knew about the relocation while still chair [2]. Media outlets have amplified that line of attack amid Carney’s political campaign, making the documents central pieces of the allegation [3] [7].
3. Carney’s rebuttal and the company line
Mark Carney and his campaign argue the formal board decision occurred after he ceased to be on the board in mid‑January 2025 and that he had no continuing connection to Brookfield at the time the change took legal effect, a point his spokespeople have stressed in response to Conservative attacks [3] [1]. Brookfield spokespeople and subsequent company governance communications emphasize continuity of operations in Canada — including continued Toronto listings and parent company headquarters claims — even as the asset manager adjusted corporate structures intended to appeal to U.S. capital [1].
4. What the public record does — and does not — prove
The public record proves three things: Brookfield publicly announced shifting its head office toward the U.S. in late 2024 [1], documents exist that critics say show Carney’s involvement before he left the board [2], and Carney publicly contests the timeline and his role, saying the formal decision postdated his departure [3]. What the sources do not provide, in the documents provided here, is incontrovertible proof that Carney personally authored or cast the decisive vote that moved the head office; reporting and corporate releases leave room for interpretation about whether his December communications amounted to operational direction or routine shareholder correspondence [2] [6].
5. Political framing and hidden agendas to account for
This dispute plays out in an election context where opposing parties have strong incentives to amplify or downplay evidence: Conservatives use corporate documents to frame Carney as disloyal to Canadian economic interests [2], while Carney’s camp and allied outlets frame attacks as politically motivated misrepresentations of complex corporate governance and index‑eligibility strategy [1] [3]. Independent outlets such as The Star note gaps in the chain of causation and caution that there is “no evidence” in available reporting that Carney had direct operational involvement in specific contested cases tied to Brookfield practices — a caveat that applies equally to the relocation question in the absence of a smoking‑gun internal memo published in the sources here [8].